Breaking up countries into ethnic regions is troubling to the US accord to Steve Clemens

[malaise]

Let me ask the West about Africa, India, the Middle East, and more recently Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan - should I go on
Give me a break please. The West has thrived on divide and rule. The British carved up people's borders and didn't give a shit who they destroyed as long as they could plunder and loot.

[FarCenter]

1. The British strategy was to create multi-ethnic colonies

Then they would install one of the minority groups in power. That way they could use native manpower to run the colony, but be sure that the native administrators were dependent on British military might to stay in power over their more numerous subjects.

[malaise]

9. Bingo

[XemaSab]

2. If Africa was two or three countries

They'd be formidable.

[FarCenter]

5. Africa's problem is that there are too few countries

And the countries that are there were drawn up by Europeans without regard to the nationalities of African.

[XemaSab]

7. The US is a world power because we are multiethnic

and we cross tribal boundaries.

If we were broken into countries that looked like this, we'd still be a developing country... or 10.

[FarCenter]

8. The US is a world power because we were controlled by a WASP elite

That broke away from Britain, bought or stole (depending) the best parts of North America, plundered the huge natural resources for rapid gains, and was the material and munitions supplier to the winning side in WW I&II.

Unless you can suggest a dominant elite that can run Africa for a century and a half, multiethnic does not provide an advantage.

India, for example, has roughly a few hundred ethnic groups, in the same ballpark as Africa. It doesn't seem to be advantageous to them.

[KoKo]

3. Do you have a link to article?

Would like to read...thanks!

[malaise]

4. He was on GEM$NBComcast

with Karen Finey

[KoKo]

6. lol's...thanks! I know he has a blog but I lost the link...

Thought it was from that.